That's how it used to be, and I haven't seen any explanation of why it was a bad idea.
They originally had to submit the entire film printed frame by frame on paper, which is the only way some early silent films have survived (and the image quality is fantastic).
It's especially ludicrous when a country tries to ban something that's legal in the rest of the world. Consider the extremely long ban in England on A Clockwork Orange, something that just seems ludicrous to an American.
And if it's something you want removed from society, banning it just drives it underground and makes it seem cool, esp. with art - because most people know that art is harmless and it's silly to try and ban it. Society can easily register disgust with something without having to make it illegal.
While I hate to seem like I'm defending child porn, I still don't see a good reason to exterminate anything work of art that has ever been released to the public. If it was legal when it was made, making it illegal after the fact is pure censorship.
This is where the artist and the public part ways.
The artist might feel the work was released too soon, might still have ideas to improve the work, and will offer up their complete vision at a later date, as has happened with the few films where the artist had the luxury to do that.
But what the artist can't change is the experience the public has seeing it the first time. This is the culture part of art that has nothing to do with the artist. It's how the community at large experiences and assimilates a work of art. It's how the masses react to things, and it's what makes art public.
It's also the reason why these insanely long copyright terms are detrimental to culture and the public. It might be adhere to the artist's wishes. It might be profitable for the copyright holder. But it's not beneficial to culture to take art out of the public sphere. The artist and the copyright holder are not the only ones that deserve a voice once a work of art has affected the entire culture (in this case everyone on the entire planet.)
That's the whole reason the public domain and fair use exist, and it needs to be vigorously defended.
It's a bunch of armed guys running into a room all shouting at the top of their lungs in such a way that no disoriented person could figure out what in the hell they're saying.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Sure I Agree with Your Premise
Point 3 seems to be the main point. It's not a question of whether piracy is a problem or not, it's the industry's response to piracy that is the problem as far as TD is concerned.
Their response has been legal instead of changing their business model largely because their whole business is built in such a way that they can't change without overhauling their infrastructure (losing lots of middle man jobs), and because they're locked into legal contracts that prevent them from changing their business model.
So you're in charge of what I can do on the internet and how much I can do it?
Glad to know the only people actually using the internet are criminals. Glad to know that in the future I'll never need more. But really glad to know the my Google Fiber imposes no limits on my data usage.
On the post: Awesomeness: Millions Of Public Domain Images Being Put Online
Re: Anyone know a good way...
On the post: George Lucas Wants Desperately To Preserve Old Movies... Unless They're His; So Fans Are Trying To Do It Instead
Re:
They originally had to submit the entire film printed frame by frame on paper, which is the only way some early silent films have survived (and the image quality is fantastic).
On the post: George Lucas Wants Desperately To Preserve Old Movies... Unless They're His; So Fans Are Trying To Do It Instead
Re: Re: I have a bad feeling about this...
On the post: George Lucas Wants Desperately To Preserve Old Movies... Unless They're His; So Fans Are Trying To Do It Instead
Re:
On the post: George Lucas Wants Desperately To Preserve Old Movies... Unless They're His; So Fans Are Trying To Do It Instead
Re: Re: Re: From Blade Runner to Pretty Baby
And if it's something you want removed from society, banning it just drives it underground and makes it seem cool, esp. with art - because most people know that art is harmless and it's silly to try and ban it. Society can easily register disgust with something without having to make it illegal.
On the post: George Lucas Wants Desperately To Preserve Old Movies... Unless They're His; So Fans Are Trying To Do It Instead
Re: From Blade Runner to Pretty Baby
On the post: George Lucas Wants Desperately To Preserve Old Movies... Unless They're His; So Fans Are Trying To Do It Instead
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: George Lucas Wants Desperately To Preserve Old Movies... Unless They're His; So Fans Are Trying To Do It Instead
Re:
The artist might feel the work was released too soon, might still have ideas to improve the work, and will offer up their complete vision at a later date, as has happened with the few films where the artist had the luxury to do that.
But what the artist can't change is the experience the public has seeing it the first time. This is the culture part of art that has nothing to do with the artist. It's how the community at large experiences and assimilates a work of art. It's how the masses react to things, and it's what makes art public.
It's also the reason why these insanely long copyright terms are detrimental to culture and the public. It might be adhere to the artist's wishes. It might be profitable for the copyright holder. But it's not beneficial to culture to take art out of the public sphere. The artist and the copyright holder are not the only ones that deserve a voice once a work of art has affected the entire culture (in this case everyone on the entire planet.)
That's the whole reason the public domain and fair use exist, and it needs to be vigorously defended.
On the post: The Interesting Thing About Google's Delivery Drones Is Not The Drones, But Massive Societal Shift They Envision
On the post: The Interesting Thing About Google's Delivery Drones Is Not The Drones, But Massive Societal Shift They Envision
Re:
On the post: Counter-Strike Player's Twitch Stream Captures His Own SWATting... And Some Questionable Police Behavior
Re:
On the post: Counter-Strike Player's Twitch Stream Captures His Own SWATting... And Some Questionable Police Behavior
Re: Re:
On the post: If You're A Copyright Maximalist 'Piracy' Must Be The Answer To All Problems
Re: Re: Death of franchises
On the post: Police Can't Find A Bunch Of The Military Weapons And Vehicles That The Pentagon Has Been Handing Out
On the post: If You're A Copyright Maximalist 'Piracy' Must Be The Answer To All Problems
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Sure I Agree with Your Premise
Their response has been legal instead of changing their business model largely because their whole business is built in such a way that they can't change without overhauling their infrastructure (losing lots of middle man jobs), and because they're locked into legal contracts that prevent them from changing their business model.
On the post: If You're A Copyright Maximalist 'Piracy' Must Be The Answer To All Problems
Re: Box office trumps all?
On the post: If You're A Copyright Maximalist 'Piracy' Must Be The Answer To All Problems
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now...
On the post: Comcast To Regulators: Data Caps? These? Nooo! These Are Just... Fuzzy Friendly Flexible Consumption Plans For Friends
Re:
Glad to know the only people actually using the internet are criminals. Glad to know that in the future I'll never need more. But really glad to know the my Google Fiber imposes no limits on my data usage.
On the post: Intellectual Property Casebook Now Available As A Free Download
Re:
On the post: TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length
Re: Hope there isn't a lawsuit, considering the qualitatively worse offering
Next >>